Search

The article focuses on antitrust law decision making in the Roberts Court, which describes the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Roberts beginning in 2005. Information is provided on U.S. antitrust regimes, economic competition, and competitive injury suits. Information is provided on price fixing and interbrand competition.

This article offers information on various court cases on antitrust policy under Judge John Roberts in the U.S. In such cases, Roberts competently assess claims of commercial predation and expresses its fears on the cost of erroneous findings. In Twombly case, the Court is skeptical about the ability of lower courts to resists drawing "false inferences" in lawsuits involving charges of tacit collusion among oligopolists while in Credit Suisse, Roberts doubts the ability of tribunals to refrain from making unusually serious mistakes. Discussed are the details of the issue.

This article discusses the implication of Telecommunications Act of 1996 to the lawsuit Twombly vs. Bell Atlantic Corp. in the U.S. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs alleged that the incumbents' parallel restraint was evidence of collusion and violated the section 1 of Sherman Act. It reveals that the first element of Twombly complaint was addressed by the Trinko decision wherein the Court ruled that failure to fully cooperate with competitive local exchange carriers (CLEC) did not expose the Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC). Discussed are the details of the lawsuit.

This article provides information on the development of the case of Texaco v. Dagher. The Supreme Court has stated in Dagher that it is not unlawful price-fixing in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act 2 for a fully-integrated joint venture to set the prices at which it sells its own products. According to the author, the plaintiffs-respondents that there was more to the case than appears from the Court's opinion, contrary to what might appear from the opinion, the respondents did in fact file a brief in the Supreme Court.

This article presents a perspective on the case of Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. The structure of the decision of the court reflects its focus on policy. After determining that Dr. Miles is bad antitrust policy, the Court concluded that considerations of "stare decisis" do not require a different result. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy posed the question as whether the Court should overrule the per se rule and allow resale price maintenance agreements to be judged by the rule of reason.

The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on the case "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP," which created a change on the monopolization law stated in the Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The case requires a lot of procedural grounds to support the court's decision. Despite of the absence of particular approach in resolving the uncompetitive conduct among monopolized businesses, the Telecommunication Act played a vital role to arrive at a decision.

The article criticizes the Supreme Court's decision on the case "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." The author argues that by relying on faulty assumptions about the regulated industry limits the scope of antitrust enforcement. He also asserts that the decision contradicts both the outcome in the case "United States v. AT&T" and the theory on which that case rested.

The article presents a discussion on the controversies brought about by the Supreme Court's decision on "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." One of the controversies involves the difference between antitrust laws with that of regulations based on functionality and doctrines The failure of judges to consider the existing telecommunications policy for the case is examined.

The article examines the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Verizon Communications Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko LLP." The decision has attracted several attentions in compliance with the 1996 Telecommunications Act which required the exchange carrier to provide access to its network to other firms which seek to provide telephone service locally. The case provide thoughtful contributions to the continuing debates over the pronouncement on monopolization law under section two of the Serman Act.